Just weeks after the failed car bombing of New York’s Times Square, the Department of Homeland Security says “the number and pace of attempted attacks against the United States over the past nine months have surpassed the number of attempts during any other previous one-year period.”

That assessment, contained in an unclassified DHS intelligence memo prepared for various law enforcement groups, does not bode well for the Obama Administration’s counterterrorism efforts. The memo also says terror groups are expected to try attacks inside the United States with “increased frequency,” and continues to notify officials that, “we have to operate under the premise that other operatives are in the country and could advance plotting with little or no warning.”

A day after the President rolled out his new national security strategy, which calls for tough diplomacy over pre-emptive military and law enforcement strength, this news is another demonstration of the Obama Administration’s failed approach to counterterrorism.

President Obama’s new National Security Strategy will stress that US military superiority must be matched by muscular diplomacy and all the tools of statecraft. For the first time, the government strategy document is likely to focus attention on the threat posed by homegrown, radical extremists.

“The president’s national security strategy explicitly recognizes the threat to the United States posed by individuals radicalized here at home,” Mr Brennan said Wednesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The president’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic.”

The assertion that our enemy is not terrorism motivated by jihadist ideology is a new, and frankly, dangerous assertion by the Obama Administration. If America’s enemy is not terrorism or jihadists, as Brennan asserts, who or what is?

Wednesday, John Brennan called jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam,” and then argued that Islamic extremists are victims of “political, economic and social forces.” Additionally he argued that those who have attacked the US and described their own cause as religious, should still not be described in “religious terms.”

Brennan’s full statement is “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” Unfortunately the definition that Brennan has seemingly adapted on behalf of the administration, refuses to define what jihadists and fundamental Islamists define as innocent – which doesn’t include anyone deemed an ‘infidel’.

Brennan, an Arabist, also referred to Jerusalem by its Arabic name “Al Quds” in a February speech, sponsored by the White House, which represents a major shift in the generally accepted vernacular of American government officials.

The 1,200 National Guard troops President Obama is dispatching to the U.S.-Mexico border will provide intelligence, reconnaissance and other support functions, but one thing they won’t be doing is helping the Border Patrol and local law enforcement nab illegal immigrants and smugglers flowing into Arizona.

Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, the president said the troops will not be in a primary role combating illegal immigration, but will be offering support roles, for drug and human trafficking interdiction. This follows the State Department‘s announcement on Wednesday that the border troop surge was, “not about immigration,” but rather about the unregulated flow of drugs and guns.

The President continues to be at odds with Arizona officials, seemingly separating the flow of humans, drugs, and guns from illegal immigration. The Administration’s directive to send troops to the border appears to be more political rather than practical, as the troops’ ability to truly be effective has been handcuffed and downgraded to a support role.

After mounting political pressure to help secure the Arizona border, President Obama has agreed to send 1,200 National Guard troops to Arizona’s border with Mexico. But, Texas issued that same request almost a year and a half ago. The Texas request for assistance has seen less press coverage and has been virtually ignored by the Obama Administration. Gov. Rick Perry has sent letters to President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano requesting National Guard troops for the Texas-Mexico border. Almost a year and a half after the first letter was sent, Gov. Perry still hasn’t received an answer.

As enforcement is stepped up in Arizona with new legislation, the refusal to secure Texas’ border seems problematic. One is left to wonder what will keep those attempting to enter the US illegally from entering in Southwest Texas, as Texas is admittedly doing an inadequate job of immigration enforcement.

After announcing the deployment of 1200 National Guard troops to the southern border, the State Department issued a statement that the troops will not be used to stem illegal immigration from Mexico. The statement followed a diplomatic conversation with Mexican officials, who urged the US to not enforce the border. Instead the troops will be used to stop the transport of drugs across the border, ignoring the fact that cartel workers are more often than not “illegal” aliens.

After soaring past Mexico economically and militarily for the past 200 years, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is allowing US sovereignty be challenged by our neighbors to the south. Allowing a foreign government to dictate the flow of their citizens into our country sends a clear message, that the boundaries to the geographic US are at risk.

Yesterday, President Obama announced his plan to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border in order to reduce the ever increasing violence. This is an unexpected move, to say the least, considering Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stated on the same day that the border is the most secure it has ever been, as well as news that the Department of Justice is moving forward with its efforts to file a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s immigration legislation. Despite a more robust request by Arizona Senator John McCain for 6,000 National Guard troops, the President chose instead to send only a fraction of those troops, and limited their abilities to a support function, conducting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions.

Some law enforcement officials along the border said they worry that Obama will repeat the mistake make by President Bush when he sent 6,000 troops to the border in 2006. Limiting the troops to support roles, rather than letting them make arrests and confront smugglers, will ultimately render those troops less effective. Officials also believe the scale of the force — one-fifth of the size of the one sent by Bush — is too small to make a difference along the length of the 2,000-mile border. 1,200 soldiers might make a difference, but only if concentrated in a smaller portion of the border.

In an effort to change the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, Congress is set to vote as early as this week on a proposal to repeal the rule barring gays from serving openly in the military, before the Pentagon completes its review of how to implement the policy and its effect.

The Obama administration has continued to back the plan, despite serious concerns about doing so voiced by the Chiefs of the service branches. Those opposing the repeal of the policy include: Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, Navy Chief of Staff Adm. Gary Roughead, and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz. The letter co-signed by each of these Chiefs cited concerns about the repeal’s effectiveness, implementation, and readiness of the military as a whole to function with openly gay service members. The rush to repeal a policy that, “works,” as Gen. Conway stated, is dangerous for the cohesion and morale of our fighting forces.

John Brennan called Hezbollah a “very interesting organization” in remarks at the Washington-based Nixon Center. He also said the United States needs to “build up the more moderate elements” of Hezbollah, which the State Department has designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

Brennan reflected on Hezbollah’s history with admiration, crediting the group as a developing political force. “Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ’80s and has evolved significantly over time,” Brennan said. “And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.” Brennan added that, “there (are) certainly the elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern to us — what they’re doing. And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements”

Brennan’s recognition of a terrorist organization as legitimate and his outright willingness to build them up is nothing short of a dereliction of duty. His post as Counterterrorism Advisor to the President would seemingly require him to promote strategies to combat terrorism. Mr. Brennan has apparently chosen to promote groups such as Hezbollah instead.